Intelligent Dual Curve-Driven Tool Path Optimization and Virtual CMM Inspection for Sculptured Surface CNC Machining

  • N. A. Fountas
  • S. Živković
  • R. Benhadj-Djilali
  • C. I. Stergiou
  • V. D. Majstorovic
  • N. M. VaxevanidisEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering book series (LNME)


This paper investigates the profitability of a dual-curve driven surface finish tool path under the concept of optimizing crucial machining parameters such as toroidal end-mill diameter, lead angle and tilt angle. Surface machining error as well as tool path time are treated as optimization objectives under a multi-criteria sense, whilst a central composite design is conducted to obtain experimental outputs for examination and, finally, fit a full quadratic model considered as the fitness function for process optimization by means of a genetic algorithm. A benchmark sculptured surface given as a second-order parametric equation was tested and simulated using a cutting-edge manufacturing modeling software and best parameters recommended by the genetic algorithm were implemented for validation. Further assessment involves the virtual inspection to selected profile sections on the part. It was shown that the approach can produce dual-curve driven tool trajectories capable of eliminating sharp scallop heights, maximizing machining strip widths as well as maintaining smoothness quality and machining efficiency.


Dual-curve driven tool paths Toroidal end-mills Multi-criteria optimization Sculptured surface machining Genetic algorithms 


  1. 1.
    Lin Z, Fu J, Shen H, Gan W (2014) An accurate surface error optimization for five-axis machining of freeform surfaces. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 71:1175–1185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Suresh K, Yang DCH (1994) Constant scallop-height machining of free-form s urfaces. J Eng Ind 116(2):253–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ding S, Mannan MA, Poo AN, Yang DCH, Han Z (2005) The implementation of adaptive isoplanar tool path generation for the machining of free-form surfaces. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 26(7):852–860Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Subhajit S, Dey PP (2014) A new iso-parametric machining algorithm for free-form surface. Proc IMechE Part E: J Process Mechanical Engineering 228(3):197–209Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhang XF, Xie J, Xie HF, Li LH (2012) Experimental investigation on various tool path strategies influencing surface quality and form accuracy of CNC milled complex freeform surface. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 59:647–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    De Souza AF, Machado A, Beckert SF, Diniz AE (2014) Evaluating the roughness according to the tool path strategy when milling free form surfaces for mold application. Proc CIRP 14:188–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ülker E, Turanalp ME, Halkaci HS (2009) An artificial immune system approach to CNC tool path generation. J Intell Manuf 20(1):67–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Agrawal RK, Pratihar DK, Choudhury AR (2006) Optimization of CNC isoscallop free form surface machining using a genetic algorithm. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 46(7–8):811–819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bedi S, Ismail F, Mahjoob MJ, Chen Y (1997) Toroidal versus ball nose and flat bottom end mills. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 13(5):326–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Redonnet JM, Djebali S, Segonds S, Senatore J, Rubio W (2013) Study of the effective cutter radius for end milling of free-form surfaces using a torus milling cutter. Comput Aided Des 45(6):951–962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lee YS (1998) Non-isoparametric tool path planning by machining strip evaluation for 5-axis sculptured surface machining. Comput Aided Des 30(7):559–570CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hendriko H (2017) Analytical boundary method for obtaining feed scallop of toroidal cutter in multi-axis milling. Key Eng Mater 728:48–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roman A, Barocio E, Huegel JC, Bedi S (2015) Rolling ball method applied to 3½½-axis machining for tool orientation and positioning and path planning. Adv Mech Eng 7(12):1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Warkentin A, Ismail F, Bedi S (2000) Comparison between multi-point and other 5-axis tool positioning strategies. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 40:185–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tunç LT, Ozkirimli OM, Budak E (2016) Machining strategy development and parameter selection in 5-axis milling based on process simulations. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 85:1483–1500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rufeng X, Zhitong C, Wuyi C, Xianzhen W, Jianjun Z (2010) Dual drive curve tool path planning method for 5-axis NC machining of sculptured surfaces. Chin J Aeronaut 23:486–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Warkentin A, Ismail F, Bedi S (2000) Multi-point tool positioning strategy for 5-axis machining of sculptured surfaces. Comput Aided Geom Des 17(1):83–100MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sibalija TV, Zivkovic SP, Fountas NA, Majstorovic VD, Macuzic JZ, Vaxevanidis NM (2016) Virtual optimisation of CAI process parameters for the sculptured surface inspection. Proc CIRP 57:574–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. A. Fountas
    • 3
  • S. Živković
    • 2
  • R. Benhadj-Djilali
    • 3
  • C. I. Stergiou
    • 4
  • V. D. Majstorovic
    • 5
  • N. M. Vaxevanidis
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Laboratory of Manufacturing Processes and Machine Tools (LMProMaT), Department of Mechanical Engineering EducatorsSchool of Pedagogical and Technological Education (ASPETE)AthensGreece
  2. 2.Coordinate Metrology LabMilitary Technical Institute BelgradeBelgradeSerbia
  3. 3.Faculty of Science, Engineering and ComputingKingston UniversityLondonUK
  4. 4.Department of Mechanical EngineeringPiraeus University of Applied SciencesEgaleoGreece
  5. 5.Faculty of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia

Personalised recommendations